Code MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'search' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., list of matches), or any performance considerations like rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Search for patterns in code') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling, and it lacks context for usage among siblings. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to effectively invoke the tool in a real-world scenario.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'query' and 'regex' interact or providing examples of search patterns. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Search for patterns in code' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('search') and target ('patterns in code'), avoiding tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_and_replace' or 'analyze_code', which might have overlapping search capabilities, making the purpose somewhat vague in context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'find_and_replace' (which likely modifies code) and 'analyze_code' (which might perform deeper analysis), there's no indication of this tool's specific context, such as for quick pattern matching without changes. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.